Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SPS. ERNESTO AND JESUSA PENGSON v. MIGUEL OCAMPO

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 164277 2014-10-08	FE U. QUIJANO v. ATTY. DARYLL A. AMANTE BERSAMIN, J.
An ejectment case can be either for forcible entry or unlawful detainer. It is a summary proceeding designed to provide expeditious means to protect the actual possession or the right to possession of the property involved.[19] The sole question for resolution in the case is the physical or material possession (possession de facto) of the property in question, and neither a claim of juridical possession (possession de jure) nor an averment of ownership by the defendant can outrightly deprive the trial court from taking due cognizance of the case. Hence, even if the question of ownership is raised in the pleadings, like here, the court may pass upon the issue but only to determine the question of possession especially if the question of ownership is inseparably linked with the question of possession.[20] The adjudication of ownership in that instance is merely provisional, and will not bar or prejudice an action between the same parties involving the title to the property.[21]
	GR NO. 156581 2005-09-30	VICTORIA R. ARAMBULO v. EMERENCIANA R. GUNGAB QUISUMBING, J.
The sole issue for resolution in an unlawful detainer case is physical or material possession.[17] But even if there was a claim of juridical possession or an assertion of ownership by the defendant, the MeTC may still take cognizance of the case. All that the trial court can do is to make an initial determination of who is the owner of the property so that it can resolve who is entitled to its possession absent other evidence to resolve ownership.[18] Courts in ejectment cases decide questions of ownership only as it is necessary to decide the question of possession. The reason for this rule is to prevent the defendant from trifling with the summary nature of an ejectment suit by the simple expedient of asserting ownership over the disputed property.[19]
	GR No. 153652 2004-01-16	ALFREDO YASAY DEL ROSARIO v. SPS. JOSE E. MANUEL AND CONCORDIA MANUEL SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
As found by the trial court, petitioner's possession of the land was by mere tolerance of the respondents. We have held in a number of cases that one whose stay is merely tolerated becomes a deforciant occupant the moment he is required to leave.[5] He is bound by his implied promise, in the absence of a contract, that he will vacate upon demand.[6]